I think that success of SaaS will depend even more on the people than tech. Up till now, if there is one major player in the field even with poor customer service, you could do very little. It is hard to compete with 20 different things you need to build to get first customers. However with all AI tools newcommers can take advantage, as building integrated solution is available provided you solve human relations, you listen to clients and solve for their problems. From buyers - you can expect more flexibility from vendors. Potentially SaaS companies will become smaller though.
Do I miss something? Why is there an agent listeningto the questions posted as DNS searches? It seemsnthat it is again a misconfigured(non existant) firewall, but how come there are agents listening (and replying?) Over some non-standard method? Can somwbody more intelligent shed some light?
I am not devops person but this is strange sandbox setup. If I undestsnd correctly, there were no firewall set to block requests to the public internet. Just something along the lines of "Pretty please dont use internet". If I understand correctly, in cases like these package registry should be within sandbox without a need for external access and block on any outgoing request to the internet. Furthermore there should be network traffic monitoring which there wasnt?
Well, not really. If you have unpacked the iphone - I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be easy to return even within the 14 day window. You can return unpacked though, which is not the point of what I'm saying. Also for the benefit of the argument, change 2 days to 15 and you end up at the same place- you cannot legally return the device, User agreement has changed in ways you don't accept and you are forced to use device, for which you have paid or accept loss and buy another device. Oh and also, you cannot change OS to the alternative one for which terms might be more acceptable to you. How is this not a subject of investigation- I don't know.
I'm more interested in the cases where you buy your phone, for example, and after purchase you are asked to agree with terms and conditions. Money is paid already. If you do not agree, you cannot use the device. Worse still, if 2 days after thre is mandatory update that forces you to agree to new version. If you don't like them, you should be compensated for it, as it is hidden information from you as a buyer.
Can you explain to me - why is it important? Would you say that about the viruses that can kill people: "We need to test the limits on how fast people can be infected and killed. It's just the risk we need to take". It somehow does not make alot of sense to me. Why can you test Agents in laboratory?
The first question that comes to my mind - what is the accountability of Open ai? What is the punishment for them for not being able to control their agents. Is this, together with previous cases, sets a precedent that "if agent does it then it is fine"?
What leads you to assume the physical work would be automated. Are there any profession thay has been replaced/automatedninto oblivion that requires more than one physical step (except for elevator operator). Because even new constructions still are not solved, where environment can be controlled for. I think the opposite is true - some people overexagerate progress that has been achieved, and overestimate exponential growth to continue to indefinite future. And in nature there is very little if anything that grows exponentially
But something can be valuable to somebody without hurting you. For example if you participate in study as a member of control group. There is no impact to your life and huge benefit to whoever is producing the research. Similarly waste collection businesses take something that has no value to you and generate profit by modifying your waste into something valuable. That is to say - the fact that somebody gains value does not equate that you are loosing the same value.
Is't the fact that data is valuable for somebody, does not mean that it has a cost (price) for me? Spending data is definitely valuable for seller / corporation to know what to produce. I, on the other hand, cannot get money by saving information.
It's not zero sum game, that either I have it or seller have value out of it. Just like with garbage - for me old broken furniture might be a garbage, while for other it's a burning fuel.
As far as I understand this is broken incentive system. Waiter can rarely make restaurant experience better - food is dependent on the kitchen - and it only worse make it worse - bad attitude, spitting in food etc. So from customer PoV, it makes no sense to pay percentage of the good as a compensation for the good. This model works where there is some risk associated - like if you sell a house, or do some legal counselling. But tips as a percentage of the bill makes no sense to me - waiter has no contribution in me ordering steak or salad. The offer, from waiter, to order something cheaper could be more tip-worthy service than alternative. Therefore, compensation as % of turnover should be Restaurant managers' concern and not the customers' problem.
Company can optimise for the benchmark (profit) while worsening the product. I think thebterm enshitification is used there. It appears that AI got it too
While it can be true for technical state of the system, you dont have the business decision log, nor you have the intention, and most importantly - you need someone to assume responsibility for this mini system. While it can be easier for tech companies, but assuming non tech person (say customer success manager) creates something and is replaced by other none tech person - there is significant probability that new person is simply not interested in developing system that is not part of the role. Or if it is you just limited your set of potential candidates.
I expect full circle on this one. Short term - many enthusiasts build stuff. I can fully imagine someone in a given company creating something over the weekend and persuading manager to adopt the system. However, 6 months pass, the person now moved into new role or left a company, nobody knows the product and it becomes just another SaaS just without working support behind it. So for short term it is definitely bring some losses. Long term I think it will bite those who dropped the software. Over-customisation for the needs of everyone is probably here to stay in my opinion
But the point is you will never have the best barista all the time l. Unless you are 0.0001 % of population who can afford personal barista to follow you anywhere, you accept whoever is serving coffe at the corner shop. And for a machine to be better that <average> barista is not a tall order. So it makes good coffee accessible for many
I am not sure if I'm ignorant or have too much self esteem, but in cases where domain is not my expertise I try to cross challenge using different models to get less-biased and hopefully more correct insights.
I think there is negative bias. The counterpoint being that with code you can test input vs output. With foreign language you cannot. Programmed system, either computes what you want or it doesnt. For Spanish you either have a person who can do testing for you. Good practises and cybersec questions matter in programming, but system doing what it is supposed to do (success path) matters more imho.
Isn't that the story of <any> technology? When the coffee machines first came to be, Barista was definitely a better option. However, through the evolution, in many cases today machine does better job than barista.
I think that is the problem with concentrated markets. You can do whatever and younare actually never "punished" by the market. Ie market htpothesis does not work
I'm pretty sure the personality tests are created specifically for the reason that a single person can have fundamentally (or conflicting) beliefs about himself in a matter of minutes. You can say "I am honest person" and the next minute you can say "I never lie" - and both cannot be true for an average person.
What is the point on Musk you are making? The monetary success does not neccesserily correlate to the common good they have created. In case of Musk there is a lot of governement subsidies, lots of market manipulation and false claim s. So not all activieties that bring profit to the richest are good to the rest. And stats on inequality just highlights that trend
I think its somewhat comparable to cutting grass in the cities.
It was manual labour first. Then there were teactors. Now robots join in - does that mean that personel cutting grass is obsolete? No , you need all of them. That means that city becomes nicer.
With software and AI I somehow feel the same will happen. How many features have you skipped just because it would help some niche set of users and PM or Management would not approve the spending. It is low priority. Or bugs that were annoying but financially not bringing much value.
I hope switching some work to AI , some companies will capture opportunity to make software better while others will make the same software cheaper
Isnt' that what old-school software did for many years? It used to take jobs, just not from developers. If you implement software that takes accounting from 10 people to 2, 8 just got fired. If you have Support solution helping one support rep answer 100 requests instead of 20, you just optimised support force by the rate of 1 to 5.
I'm in the boat of SaaS myself, but feel a bit dishonesty from Senior devs complaining about technology stealing jobs. When it was them doing the stealing, it was fine. Now that the tables have turned, it's not technology is bad
My feeling was the same reading. If you give a task to a junior and he wipes out a database in production - it is not a fault of a Junior, it is your own fault that he was able to do it.
Isnt that point kind of the counterpoint to the AI-first narrative.
With standard, human driven operations its true about opportunity costs. What we are told is that AI will replace human, essentially saying that opportunity cost becomes cash only. Then the question of why doesnt AI lab start SaaS fully managed by AI becomes ever more interesting. Maybe because it's not that simple. Hence, it's not that easy in other companies as well to just replace devs, engineers and so on with AI
Can I ask you if you consider that AI changes anything about that? Since I'm embarking on the same boat, my dream is a team of AI which supports and ensures business continuity while Im on vacation or "OOO" otherwise.
I am honestly curious about your point on productivity boost. Are you saying that you can write tests at the same speed as AI can? Or is it the point that tests written by AI is of much lower quality that is not worth using them?
I am at the role of solo-preneur now and I see a lot of benefit from AI. But then I read posts like yours that experienced devs don't see much value in AI and I start to doubt the things I do. Are they bad quality(possibly) or is it something else going on.
I think it highly depends on your perception on what is your job.
If programmer is only the code-writer - then it is reasonable to agree with the post.
If on the other hand the developer is problem solver - well it just changes what problems you're solving. Somehow I don't see the future where CEO of any respectable company would sit with AI and ask Agent to develop features. You hire people who solves problems for you.
Facing similar issue with monitoring part of executions. What is your solution if I may as - have you taken smth of the shelf and extended to your needs or did you built from the ground up everything?